Synergy's Top-5 Worst Defenders

[Blackjack]

@tomhaberstroh

Synergy's top 5 worst defenders (min. 300 plays): J.R. Smith, Ramon Sessions, Daniel Gibson, Marco Belinelli, Nic Batum.

Discuss . . .

[LnGrrrR]

What? No Nash? Forum upheaval/meltdown in 3...2....1...

[ElNono]

Is that the same system that told Cubes that Kidd was the #2 best player in the league (or something ridiculous like that)?

[Bito Corleone]

Is it in that order?

tbh I'm kinda surprised to see Batum on there. I don't follow the Blazers too much, but I thought most people say he's a good defender. The rest of them could be expected.

[Xylus]

Nash has defended well this year, probably the best defense he's played his whole career.

[HarlemHeat37]

No, Synergy isn't an advanced stat program, it's a scouting system that tracks every individual play during the NBA season..

[HarlemHeat37]

Batum's D has been ty all year, I mentioned it earlier in the season..injuries have affected him, but he has become more focused on the offensive side of things..

[JamStone]

It would be interesting to see how they determined the grading system or formula.

Players can be worse or better depending on their teammates and defensive schemes. I think Glen Davis would be an average defender at best on most teams. But with good defenders around him, a really good system for team defense, and the influence the entire team and coaching staff on Boston have had for the last few seasons, he's become a very good defender. Similarly, when Chauncey Billups was on the Pistons playing in front of Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace and with Tayshaurn often taking the toughest perimeter player regardless of any of the three perimeter positions, Billups was regarded as a much better defender than he actually was. It was astonishing to me that Billups was ever selected to an all NBA defensive team, much less twice. He was always an average defender, perhaps a smart team defender, who played with some very good defenders who made him look better than he was. And someone like Shawn Marion maybe could have made a couple all NBA defensive teams during his prime years if he hadn't played in such an anti-defensive style system in Phoenix.

[timtonymanu]

No Roger Mason?

[Blackjack]

Batum's D has been ty all year, I mentioned it earlier in the season..injuries have affected him, but he has become more focused on the offensive side of things..

Batum needs out of that environment, stat. It's just a constant struggle for all of those young players to develop individually -- at the same time -- in a team concept while having that constant cloud of injury plaguing the organization.

He does have drifting tendencies though, and one end of the floor (mostly offensive) does tend to affect the other for better or worse . . .

[Xylus]

No Roger Mason?

I don't think RMJ's been given enough minutes to prove himself either way.

[Obstructed_View]

If there's any validity to that, then the Spurs might be lucky that they weren't able to draft him as a Bowen replacement.

[Kai]

lol Kevin Martin not being on the list

[baseline bum]

No Roger Mason?

min. 300 plays ?

[HarlemHeat37]

It would be interesting to see how they determined the grading system or formula.

Players can be worse or better depending on their teammates and defensive schemes. I think Glen Davis would be an average defender at best on most teams. But with good defenders around him, a really good system for team defense, and the influence the entire team and coaching staff on Boston have had for the last few seasons, he's become a very good defender. Similarly, when Chauncey Billups was on the Pistons playing in front of Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace and with Tayshaurn often taking the toughest perimeter player regardless of any of the three perimeter positions, Billups was regarded as a much better defender than he actually was. It was astonishing to me that Billups was ever selected to an all NBA defensive team, much less twice. He was always an average defender, perhaps a smart team defender, who played with some very good defenders who made him look better than he was. And someone like Shawn Marion maybe could have made a couple all NBA defensive teams during his prime years if he hadn't played in such an anti-defensive style system in Phoenix.

I have access to it, I've posted many numbers before..that's where I got the numbers in our Kobe-Lebron 3-point shooting argument last year..

Obviously, every star or scouting stats like this have their flaws..Synergy breaks everything up into separate categories, for example, they will break defense up into: isolation defense, post defense, p&r defense(for both the ball-handler and the finisher), spot-up defense(team D, where the player in question has to make the rotation to the shooter), screen defense, and other categories..

It's measured by points per possession, but it gives you every number, along with it(so FG%, FTA drawn from this type of possession, % of plays for that type of offense)..so it's very accurate..just using the number alone probably isn't enough, but it gives you access to the videos of every play in question, and you can easily form a conclusion, based on all the empirical evidence..

The flaws are obviously that it can't factor in a defender playing good D, but the offensive player still makes the tough shot..it doesn't factor in the strength of the opponent, so a perimeter stopper might have worse numbers than a defender that guards the worse player on the opposing team..

Overall, it's by far the best measure of NBA players IMO..

[LnGrrrR]

I have access to it, I've posted many numbers before..that's where I got the numbers in our Kobe-Lebron 3-point shooting argument last year..

Obviously, every star or scouting stats like this have their flaws..Synergy breaks everything up into separate categories, for example, they will break defense up into: isolation defense, post defense, p&r defense(for both the ball-handler and the finisher), spot-up defense(team D, where the player in question has to make the rotation to the shooter), screen defense, and other categories..

It's measured by points per possession, but it gives you every number, along with it(so FG%, FTA drawn from this type of possession, % of plays for that type of offense)..so it's very accurate..just using the number alone probably isn't enough, but it gives you access to the videos of every play in question, and you can easily form a conclusion, based on all the empirical evidence..

The flaws are obviously that it can't factor in a defender playing good D, but the offensive player still makes the tough shot..it doesn't factor in the strength of the opponent, so a perimeter stopper might have worse numbers than a defender that guards the worse player on the opposing team..

Overall, it's by far the best measure of NBA players IMO..

I saw a post on another forum that showed some Synergy defensive stats between PGs. DRose was the best, followed by Paul, and I think Rondo was third.

[lil_penny]

batum has fallen off this year from what he was the last two.. hes been looking to score alot more this season instead. the one thing i could say is that hes the one who night in and night out is on the kobes, lebrons, melos and so on so that might make his numbers alot worse then the average player lol

[lefty]

Not surprised Gibson in is that list

I mean, how else would Parker have won the 2007 Finals MVP award?

[ElNono]

I have access to it, I've posted many numbers before..that's where I got the numbers in our Kobe-Lebron 3-point shooting argument last year..

Obviously, every star or scouting stats like this have their flaws..Synergy breaks everything up into separate categories, for example, they will break defense up into: isolation defense, post defense, p&r defense(for both the ball-handler and the finisher), spot-up defense(team D, where the player in question has to make the rotation to the shooter), screen defense, and other categories..

It's measured by points per possession, but it gives you every number, along with it(so FG%, FTA drawn from this type of possession, % of plays for that type of offense)..so it's very accurate..just using the number alone probably isn't enough, but it gives you access to the videos of every play in question, and you can easily form a conclusion, based on all the empirical evidence..

The flaws are obviously that it can't factor in a defender playing good D, but the offensive player still makes the tough shot..it doesn't factor in the strength of the opponent, so a perimeter stopper might have worse numbers than a defender that guards the worse player on the opposing team..

Overall, it's by far the best measure of NBA players IMO..

Stats are for fanbois...

[cobbler]

Overall, it's by far the best measure of NBA players IMO..

Says the statboy.

I prefer to actually watch them.

[HarlemHeat37]

Says the statboy.

I prefer to actually watch them.

Um, these are numbers based entirely on watching them..there aren't any formulas or advanced stats here, these are numbers that are compiled strictly from watching the games..it even gives you access to every single play in the NBA season, so you can watch every play that was used to compile the numbers..

NBA scouts all use this type of research for scouting..

[Axe Murderer]

Says the statboy.

I prefer to actually watch them.

So are you saying you are watching every player during every possession of every game every night all season every season?

[HarlemHeat37]

So are you saying you are watching every player during every possession of every game every night all season every season?

Don't be silly..he obviously studies game tape with Phil Jackson, before every game....

[cobbler]

So are you saying you are watching every player during every possession of every game every night all season every season?

No. Why would you assume that? Stats and scouting tools are just that. Tools. Would you make a draft or trade based on the numbers? No. You have scouts that go WATCH the players and use the tools to help form an overall opinion. Anybody knows that stats only tell a small portion of the overall game and can be very misleading in many ways.

Heck, since all these tools so obviously tell every aspect of the game... why even play them? We can just hand the trophy day one to the Hollinger prediction.

[Ed Lover]

No. Why would you assume that? Stats and scouting tools are just that. Tools. Would you make a draft or trade based on the numbers? No. You have scouts that go WATCH the players and use the tools to help form an overall opinion. Anybody knows that stats only tell a small portion of the overall game and can be very misleading in many ways.

Heck, since all these tools so obviously tell every aspect of the game... why even play them? We can just hand the trophy day one to the Hollinger prediction.